Julian Loke wrote:
>
> >> http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/faq30/eos3af.html
>
> > "Plumviewer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...
> > And, repeated acknowledgment that the 70-200 2.8 L is kind of
> > an AF odd ball ...
>
> Hi Plums,
>
> This point escaped me. What do you mean about the 70-200/2.8?
>
OK, here's what I think is odd ball about AF and the 70-200 2.8L.
The lens chart of every Canon Lens brochure since arrival of the 1N and
the 70-200 2.8L carries a footnote - *** Only the central focusing point
should be used when these zoom lenses are used with EF Extenders. (This
is the latest footnote and now refers to the 100-400L zoom as well as
the 70-200 2.8L).
In June of 1995 I bought and A2E, 70-200 2.8L and EF 2x extender. The
2.8L was very new then and I asked the Canon rep about the "footnote,"
on the EOS 1n's brochure. He said "Forget about it. All focus points
will work."
Well, he was right. Little did I know that that the 2.8 L and EF2x
would account for 75% of a ton of exposures, almost all with the A2E's
ECF and 5 points selected. A few times when pursuing a critter (usually
a fox or coyote) at near dark, the light would get so low that AF would
hunt like mad. Switching to central point only was no help. In near
darkness I'd have to remove the extender to restore AF, but again, there
was little difference, if any, between single central and choosing 5 points.
The "odd" thing is that the 2.8L, as a zoom, is footnoted like mad in
the AF chart presented in the EOS 3 Technical Brochure. Just look at
the chart in the URL above.
The odd thing is that in the field, with the A2e at least, it performs
like prime 2.8's.
Is it "odd" or does it buck the odds?
Regards,
Plumviewer
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
